MQ: Sequel or Remake?


I originally asked this in a different thread, but it got flamed out before I was able to see any responses...

A friend was out visiting the other weekend, and we are both movie buffs. At one point, she made a blanket statement that "all movie remakes are worse than the original."

We debated this for a while, and came up with a few rules -- movies based on pre-existing works (Romeo and Juliette) or directors that remake their own films (Hitchcock's The Man Who Knew Too Much) don't qualify as remakes, nor do sequels.

My brain made a convoluted connection between this and MQ -- is it a RQ sequel, or is it a remake?

And does that affect your reaction to Mongoose's new product?

Or heck, do you even love movie remakes, or hate 'em? My friend most hated remake was City of Angels (from Wings of Desire).
I'd say remake. I treat remakes on their own merits, while sequels I expect to compare to the original.

Of course in my case I never saw the original RQs :)

If I compare the new RQ to what I do know, which is d20, then it compares very favourably - the system is far more streamlined and works far better as background mechanics to the story than d20 does - d20 tends to push the rules to the foreground as many decisions are inevitably taken because of rules mechanics rather than storyline reasons (incidently, I've found the same true of a lot of rules-heavy wargames - you forget the military forces involved and the game degenerates into rules and mathematics)
I'd think of it more as a sequel - its not trying to remake the old rules (or the old Glorantha) - its trying to take the flavour of RQ's bronze age non-wizard style and give it to a new generation.
Much of the substance is feels similar (whether it is or not) but they arent modifying old things, they are making a new system with the language and style of the old one.

Sequels can be better or worse than the original - but they are supposed to be a different flim/game/whatever. A sequel doesnt even have to be in the same genre. (e.g. Alien (horror) - Aliens (action movie))
A remake has to be seen in light of the original source material and should be based on that as to its quality.

There are some remakes that excel (Branagh's Henry V and The Thomas Crown Affair (the Pierce Brosnan one) spring to mind) - but much of it is subjective - and one problem is you dont (normally) remake a crap film - so all remakes have a higher bar to pass than sequels.
You missed several other options.

Compare it to Camelot vs Excalibur vs Sword in the Stone
None are sequels, and none are "reimaginings" of each other; all are parallel retellings of the same legends.

Similar with the Errol Flynn Robin Hood, the Disney Robin Hood animated, Costner Robin Hood, and Robin Hood: Men in Tights.

Now, having just sat down with RQ3-AH-D, We're not quite to reimagining (Glorantha is undamaged by it), but were different enough to not be a sequel.

It is a Retelling of RQ1 rules... the parallels are RQ3, HW/HQ, and MRQ.
A sequel adds to the original material. So the Epic Level Handbook would be a sequel to the Player's Handbook in D&D, while the Player's Handbook itself was a remake of the AD&D Player's Handbook, because the information in the original PH is not part of the universe of the new PH.

Same with MRQ. MRQ does not really add to the information on Glorantha, although it does change slightly information based on the original RQ. You can't take original RQ stuff and just add it to MRQ without considering how the rules have changed, although like the AD&D PH, you can take stuff that was not adapted, and adapt it yourself.

So I'd say MRQ was a remake, for what its worth.

However, games are not like movies. Most game remakes are better than the original. I'm not sure about MRQ, although my sequel RQ-Modern is probably better 8)